AP High Court grants bail to NAAC member in KLEF accreditation case

What the Record Shows

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati on 6 March 2025 granted regular bail to Dr Bulu Maharana, described in the order as a professor at Sambalpur University and a member of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), who is the fourteenth accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation's case concerning the accreditation grading of the Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KLEF), Guntur. The order was passed by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao in Criminal Petition No. 1969 of 2025.

The CBI's case, as recorded in the order, is that KLEF sought a favourable NAAC accreditation grade by allegedly paying members of the inspection team. The prosecution alleged a total demand of Rs 1.80 crore, with an amount of Rs 3 lakh and a laptop said to have been agreed for each member. The CBI registered the matter through its anti-corruption unit in New Delhi under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The agency has said it arrested ten people on 1 February 2025 after laying a trap. Granting bail, the High Court recorded the defence submission that no material showed the applicant had demanded or accepted a bribe or tampered with witnesses, and imposed conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation. No accused has been convicted, and the allegations remain to be tested at trial.

How It Worked

The mechanism the CBI alleges rests on how NAAC grades are awarded. A peer-review team visits an institution and scores it across defined criteria; a cumulative grade point average above 3.65 secures the top A++ grade. That grade is not cosmetic: it drives student intake, the fees an institution can command, its degree of autonomy, its graded-autonomy status and its eligibility for certain public funding. The value, on the agency's case, lay in inflating that score.

According to the order, the prosecution alleges that a negotiated payment was arranged with members of the inspection committee to secure an elevated assessment, with the Rs 1.80 crore demand reduced in practice to a per-member arrangement of Rs 3 lakh and a laptop. The CBI has said its trap led to the recovery of cash, gold, laptops and mobile phones during searches at around 20 locations across several states.

The people arrested on 1 February 2025 included members of the inspection team and officials of the institution, per the CBI. The order records that the investigation was substantially complete by the time of the bail hearing, that 23 witnesses had been examined and that material seizures had concluded, which is the context in which the court found continued custody of this applicant unnecessary.

Every characterisation of wrongdoing here is an allegation by the CBI or a submission recorded by the court. None has been established before a trial court, and the bail order decides only the applicant's liberty pending trial, not his guilt.

Who Lost Money

There is no single depositor out of pocket in this case. The injury the agency alleges is to a consumer-facing quality signal: an institution's NAAC grade is the mark that students and parents rely on when choosing where to study and what fees to accept. If that grade can be bought, every fee premium charged on the strength of it becomes a mis-selling question, and every competing institution that earned its grade honestly is placed at a disadvantage.

On amounts, the figures on the record are allegations. The prosecution alleged a demand of Rs 1.80 crore and a per-member arrangement of Rs 3 lakh and a laptop, and the CBI has reported recovering cash and valuables during its searches. No figure has been adjudicated, and the sums should be read as the agency's case rather than a proven loss.

The wider cost falls on the public systems that key decisions to accreditation. Regulators use the NAAC grade to allocate autonomy and funding, so a compromised grade distorts those decisions well beyond the institution that holds it.

Where It Stands Now

As of the most recent record reviewed, the matter is at the investigation and pre-trial stage. The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to the fourteenth accused on 6 March 2025 on conditions; the order notes that the investigation was substantially complete, with witnesses examined and seizures done. Ten people were arrested in February 2025, and bail decisions for individual accused turn on their own circumstances rather than on the merits of the case.

No court has convicted anyone, and charges are yet to be tested at trial. The accreditation body has faced calls to tighten how peer-review teams are allotted and how grades are reviewed where an assessment is under investigation; readers should confirm any specific remedial step against NAAC's own notifications rather than press summaries.

A chargesheet or FIR contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing in the CBI's case has been proved before a trial court.

What It Means

The case underlines that in Indian higher education the accreditation grade is the credential that carries the most consumer weight, and that its value depends entirely on the integrity of the assessment behind it. When the assessment itself is alleged to be for sale, the grade stops being information and becomes a liability for everyone who trusted it.

For a student or parent, the practical safeguard is public and free. NAAC publishes each accredited institution's grade and the validity period of that accreditation on its official portal, and a grade can be checked there before any fee is paid or a seat accepted. Treat the grade as one input among several, alongside placement records and faculty strength, rather than as conclusive proof of quality.

The pattern connects directly to enforcement in the medical-education space, where a separate CBI case alleges bribery to secure favourable inspection reports. More matters are collected in Oquilia's enforcement archive, including that CBI medical-college inspection case and a CBI chargesheet the Delhi High Court declined to quash.

FAQ

What did the Andhra Pradesh High Court decide?

On 6 March 2025 the court granted regular bail to the fourteenth accused, a NAAC member, in Criminal Petition No. 1969 of 2025, on a personal bond with sureties and conditions to cooperate with the investigation and not influence witnesses. A bail decision concerns only whether an accused is released pending trial; it is not a finding on guilt.

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. An FIR contains allegations, not findings of guilt. Everyone named is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. This report attributes every wrongdoing claim to the CBI or to the court's record, and nothing in the case has been established before a trial court.

What is the CBI alleging?

The CBI alleges that KLEF sought a favourable NAAC accreditation grade by paying members of the inspection team, with the order recording an alleged total demand of Rs 1.80 crore and a per-member arrangement of Rs 3 lakh and a laptop. These are allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, to be proved at trial.

Have there been any convictions?

No. The matter is at the investigation and pre-trial stage. Ten people were arrested in February 2025 and at least one has since been granted bail, but no accused has been convicted and the charges are yet to be tested before a trial court.

Where can I read the official record, and how do I check a NAAC grade?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bail order dated 6 March 2025 is available on Indian Kanoon and sets out the CBI's allegations and the sections invoked. An institution's current NAAC grade and its validity period can be verified free of charge on NAAC's official portal before paying any fee.

This report is based on the bail order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 6 March 2025 in Criminal Petition No. 1969 of 2025, reviewed on 4 August 2026.